Ukraine agrees to U.S.-led ceasefire plan

FAITH-IN-HIM · Mar 12, 2025

Laodicean60 said:
So, they will lose the war of attrition. 25 to 18, when this happens how many men will become refugees Plus they are dealing with desertions.

"The issue of desertion has made headlines in Ukraine. Last week the government launched an investigation into the 155th Mechanised Brigade. Fifty-six soldiers disappeared while training in France. Hundreds of others are said to be missing. The unit’s commander, Dmytro Riumshyn, was arrested. He faces 10 years in jail for failing to carry out his official duties and to report unauthorised absences.

After three years of war, Ukraine is desperately short of soldiers, especially infantry. This has made it easier for Russia’s army to advance in the east. There are structural issues too. New brigades have been built from scratch. They performed poorly. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, recently ordered a change in policy, with inexperienced recruits integrated into existing battalions."

We can sit here a million miles away beating the drum of Russia, Russia, Russia, but the Ukrainian men aren't willing to just look at the refugees from Ukraine since the war started.

https://www.reuters.com/world/text-us-ukraine-statement-paving-way-resumption-aid-intelligence-sharing-2025-03-11/

Perhaps you did not notice, but I am supporting the Trump administration's efforts to negotiate peace for Ukraine. It is possible you may have missed part of my previous post; however, I am advocating for a peace process.

So hold your attack for someone else!

Fantine · Mar 12, 2025

Russia has had to recruit soldiers from N. Korea. They helped Russia for a brief time. Believe it or not, I think they were dissatisfied at how Russian soldiers are treated as expendable.

Russia is in worse shape than Ukraine manpower-wise.

If Russia is left whole due to Trump's capitulation then they will look to knock down the next domino very quickly.

Desk trauma · Mar 12, 2025

The lesson of the late twentieth and early twentieth first century: if you don’t have nuclear weapons, acquire them. If you have them, never relinquish them.

Laodicean60 · Mar 12, 2025

Fantine said:
Russia has had to recruit soldiers from N. Korea.

This is the way Russia fights the bull rush.

Fantine said:
N. Korea. They helped Russia for a brief time. Believe it or not, I think they were dissatisfied at how Russian soldiers are treated as expendable.

I agree. Russia recruit, or did Rocket Man offer troops?

Fantine said:
Russia is in worse shape than Ukraine manpower-wise.

Do you have a source?

mark46 · Mar 12, 2025

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
I understand Europe has no choice but increase its defense budget and build up massive military. However, it is truly astonishing that half of America considers this to be a positive development.

As an American, I prefer that we strengthen our own military and let Europe depend on the USA.

That has been the policy of the Republicans and Democrats since WWII.

Nithavela · Mar 12, 2025

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
I understand Europe has no choice but increase its defense budget and build up massive military. However, it is truly astonishing that half of America considers this to be a positive development.

As an American, I prefer that we strengthen our own military and let Europe depend on the USA.

I hope that we will no longer be dependent upon the USA.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Mar 12, 2025

Nithavela said:
I hope that we will no longer be dependent upon the USA.

If I were European, I would share that hope like you.

However, as an American, I prefer that Europe continues to depend on the United States as it has for the past 80 years. Unfortunately, many of my fellow citizens have become accustomed to not worrying about threats from Western Europe, and they cannot imagine a scenario where Europe becomes more powerful than all of the United States' adversaries, potentially threatening the US's standing in the world.

Or

They believe America can isolate itself within the continental US and doesn't need the rest of the world.

Nithavela · Mar 12, 2025

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
If I were European, I would share that hope like you.

However, as an American, I prefer that Europe continues to depend on the United States as it has for the past 80 years. Unfortunately, many of my fellow citizens have become accustomed to not worrying about threats from Western Europe, and they cannot imagine a scenario where Europe becomes more powerful than all of the United States' adversaries, potentially threatening the US's standing in the world.

Or

They believe America can isolate itself within the continental US and doesn't need the rest of the world.

Of course. I also prefer my friends to be helpless, so that I can manipulate them more easily.

SimplyMe · Mar 12, 2025

Laodicean60 said:
That's ok because whatever they discuss won't happen unless Trump agrees.

This would be false. That is the exact reason they are meeting, they are meeting to make plans that don't require the US to implement, such as to defend their countries (since they believe the US will not defend them) if they are attacked. For example, you have the Chancellor of Germany stating, “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.” He went on to talk about how the US might not like some of the results -- my interpretation is the end of NATO (replaced by an organization made solely of European nations) and that the US may lose its bases in Europe.

It is also worth noting that European nations are also re-evaluating some of the contracts for US military equipment, that they are thinking of cancelling orders and instead going with other European manufacturers. Again, this is due to a lack of trust of the US, particularly when most modern US weapons have "kill switches," where equipment sold to other nations can be rendered useless by the US through software. While the "kill switch" is to prevent US equipment from being used against the US, for example, if the equipment is captured, there is a fear that the US would use the "kill switch" if Europe would use it in a war where the US did not approve of the war (for example, against Russia if they were to attack again).

Vambram said:
How many more thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dead Ukrainians and dead Russian people until your foreign policy goals are reached?
As someone who was deployed twice, one year each time, into Iraq, this soldier here is VERY patrioticaly PROUD of the GREAT MORALITY of our nation's foreign policy and efforts to end this most contemptible war between Russia and Ukraine.

Your last line bothers me, about the "contemptible war between Russia and Ukraine" -- as if both sides were equally guilty for the war. Let us be clear, it is a "contemptible invasion of Ukraine by Russia," particularly if we are talking of morality.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Let me take you to an alternate reality for a moment.

Had President Trump lost in November and President Harris were in office today, the policy toward Ukraine would continue. The US and EU would send aid to Ukraine as they have since the war began. What do you think the outcome would be if this policy continued?

Here are potential scenarios for the situation in Ukraine:

Global support continues, the conflict continue indefinitely without Ukraine force out Russian forces.

President Putin die from natural cause or face a political shift, resulting in new leadership in Russia and Russia withdraw from Ukraine.

The unthinkable scenario is a NATO-Russia conflict leading to nuclear war.

The first two scenarios could take years to happen, and we wouldn't live to see the last one.

During this conflict, the Russian economy is declining, and many of their young men dying on the battlefield. But In Ukraine, the conflict is taking place on their streets, over 7 million people left the country. Those who remain are living on a day-to-day basis. How long do you think Ukraine can continue this situation?

Achieving peace with Russia is the only resolution to this conflict. Putin is unlikely to withdraw from Ukraine unless he secures a political victory domestically. If the West want to humiliate Putin's standing within Russia, that outcome will be improbable without the event of a NATO-Russia conflict.

Ukraine will need to consider ceding certain territories to Russia in order to preserve President Putin's domestic reputation. That is the only way Putin will agree to any peace process. This perspective is not limited to the Trump administration; nearly 49% of Ukrainians share it. In 2023, 71% of Ukrainians wanted to keep fighting until they drove out Russia. Today, that figure has dropped to 51%, and it is expected to decrease further as the conflict continues.

You forgot at least a couple of scenarios. First, the the Russian economy will completely collapse (as it is close to doing now) and Russia will be forced to withdraw and sue Ukraine for peace (and the West to remove sanctions). Though, perhaps the more likely, Putin is removed by the oligarchs that have been supporting him, due to the poor state of the Russian economy and their financial losses. And I'm fairly certain I've left out a couple of other possibilities that would be bad for Russia.

I think it is worth noting that the people who only talk about how Ukraine can't win and all the people that have left Ukraine (ignoring the million or so military aged young men that fled Russia) are the same that claimed that Russia would win the war in the first two weeks, that Ukraine could not stand up to Russian military might. Yet, here we are, three years later with Russia still not having any clear path to victory.

Don't get me wrong, peace would be a great thing. My issues, though, is that it seems like we're already conceding points to Russia (such as Ukraine not joining NATO and that Ukraine will concede land) even before negotiations start. That is not a good, or a fair, way to start negotiations against the invading force.

Next, particularly given Russia's recent history (since the USSR ended) of attacking their neighbors, we need to guarantee that any negotiated peace lasts more than just a few years, longer than it would take Russia to rebuild its army and attack again. Signing a peace treaty just to "end the war" but that allows it to restart in a few years is not a real peace, and should be avoided.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN · Mar 12, 2025

It's Putin/ Russia that needs cease fire. Since they started their terrorist attack against Ukraine.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Mar 12, 2025

Nithavela said:
Of course. I also prefer my friends to be helpless, so that I can manipulate them more easily.

In international relations, the concept of "friends" is often replaced by allies and adversaries. Eighty years ago, the United States was engaged in conflict with your country. Today, the United States has its largest military base in your country. The future, however, remains uncertain and subject to change.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Mar 12, 2025

SimplyMe said:
This would be false. That is the exact reason they are meeting, they are meeting to make plans that don't require the US to implement, such as to defend their countries (since they believe the US will not defend them) if they are attacked. For example, you have the Chancellor of Germany stating, “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.” He went on to talk about how the US might not like some of the results -- my interpretation is the end of NATO (replaced by an organization made solely of European nations) and that the US may lose its bases in Europe.

It is also worth noting that European nations are also re-evaluating some of the contracts for US military equipment, that they are thinking of cancelling orders and instead going with other European manufacturers. Again, this is due to a lack of trust of the US, particularly when most modern US weapons have "kill switches," where equipment sold to other nations can be rendered useless by the US through software. While the "kill switch" is to prevent US equipment from being used against the US, for example, if the equipment is captured, there is a fear that the US would use the "kill switch" if Europe would use it in a war where the US did not approve of the war (for example, against Russia if they were to attack again).

Your last line bothers me, about the "contemptible war between Russia and Ukraine" -- as if both sides were equally guilty for the war. Let us be clear, it is a "contemptible invasion of Ukraine by Russia," particularly if we are talking of morality.

You forgot at least a couple of scenarios. First, the the Russian economy will completely collapse (as it is close to doing now) and Russia will be forced to withdraw and sue Ukraine for peace (and the West to remove sanctions). Though, perhaps the more likely, Putin is removed by the oligarchs that have been supporting him, due to the poor state of the Russian economy and their financial losses. And I'm fairly certain I've left out a couple of other possibilities that would be bad for Russia.

I think it is worth noting that the people who only talk about how Ukraine can't win and all the people that have left Ukraine (ignoring the million or so military aged young men that fled Russia) are the same that claimed that Russia would win the war in the first two weeks, that Ukraine could not stand up to Russian military might. Yet, here we are, three years later with Russia still not having any clear path to victory.

Don't get me wrong, peace would be a great thing. My issues, though, is that it seems like we're already conceding points to Russia (such as Ukraine not joining NATO and that Ukraine will concede land) even before negotiations start. That is not a good, or a fair, way to start negotiations against the invading force.

Next, particularly given Russia's recent history (since the USSR ended) of attacking their neighbors, we need to guarantee that any negotiated peace lasts more than just a few years, longer than it would take Russia to rebuild its army and attack again. Signing a peace treaty just to "end the war" but that allows it to restart in a few years is not a real peace, and should be avoided.

It was not merely speculation from individuals that Ukraine would lose the war against Russia; it was the conclusion drawn by numerous intelligence agencies in the Western world, including the CIA, MI6, DGSE, and BND. These agencies had overestimated Russia's conventional military capabilities and believed that Ukraine would not withstand Russia for even a week.

The Russian economy has declined but is far from collapsing. Europe's dependency on Russian energy has decreased by 80%, and that energy now goes to India and China. The Biden administration avoided aggravating India and China, allowing Russia to maintain its pre-war energy sales levels. However, other economic sectors suffered. There is insufficient data to predict if or when the Russian economy might collapse. It could happen next year or in five years.

You are correct; there is a possibility that a Russian oligarch or military general may challenge and replace President Putin. However, the exact timing of such an event remains uncertain—it could occur within six months or in six years. The specific timeline is unknown.

However, I agree with you; any peace agreement must include a security guarantee from the United States to Ukraine, as well as future deterrents to prevent Russia from attacking neighboring countries. Without such assurances from the United States and NATO, peace with Russia is likely to be short-lived, potentially lasting only three or four years.

Laodicean60 · Mar 12, 2025

SimplyMe said:
That is the exact reason they are meeting, they are meeting to make plans that don't require the US

Not when it comes to Ukraine.

SimplyMe said:
For example, you have the Chancellor of Germany stating, “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.”

And this is ok with me; it's common sense to be able to defend yourself against enemies, and that includes neighbors.

SimplyMe said:
It is also worth noting that European nations are also re-evaluating some of the contracts for US military equipment, that they are thinking of cancelling orders and instead going with other European manufacturers. Again, this is due to a lack of trust of the US,

This is capitalism if we are providing sub-standard weapons buy somewhere else. If they don't buy from us because they are mad, so what?

SimplyMe said:
I think it is worth noting that the people who only talk about how Ukraine can't win and all the people that have left Ukraine (ignoring the million or so military aged young men that fled Russia) are the same that claimed that Russia would win the war in the first two weeks, that Ukraine could not stand up to Russian military might. Yet, here we are, three years later with Russia still not having any clear path to victory.

But, but what happened to all the fear talk from Western propaganda of Russia taking over Ukraine and attacking NATO next?

SimplyMe said:
gain, this is due to a lack of trust of the US, particularly when most modern US weapons have "kill switches," where equipment sold to other nations can be rendered useless by the US through software. While the "kill switch" is to prevent US equipment from being used against the US, for example, if the equipment is captured, there is a fear that the US would use the "kill switch" if Europe would use it in a war where the US did not approve of the war (for example, against Russia if they were to attack again).

No big deal. I've heard Democrats wanting to reduce military spending, which is also fine by me.

Ukraine agrees to U.S.-led ceasefire plan

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

[redacted]

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Senior Veteran

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads